Disregarding considerations for artistic integrity, should the government fund the arts? As in, should a certain amount of state or federal budget go to public school music and art programs, state-level "cultural councils," the exportation of American culture via programs like the Pell grant, funding of art that can't necessarily compete commercially despite its great artistic merit... or is art just an excess that should be left to fend for itself like any other form of entertainment?

__________________
Christopher Ray
AIM- ChrisRay6000

Governments are not necessary for this. Institutions which provide experience and professionalism in the arts, advertising, etc. should fend for themselves. However the local, state, and national government may spend money to preserve or store art in special museums or spend on civil engineering which allows art to be expressed in the form of architecture. That does not mean they fund the artists, but I believe it is ok to fund the places where their art is located.

No. It's better to have arts competing. Art is based on people's aesthetic tastes and makes it an especially good medium for free markets. There is no need to see any particular type of art protected, because there are always niche markets. And fine arts with historical value tend to be preserved by museums and historical organizations.
Art of any particular type is not crucial. Art itself would continue to exist even if the forms change.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

There's your poll right there to give ya an idea of what sort of people are airing their opinions on here. '30% say the government should fund the arts' what nonesense. Not my money.

Which in this particular case... is one person... out of a whopping 3 (looks like it went down to 25%, currently 1 out of 4) voting.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Any objections?

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt

Yes. I would think the gov't would have an interest in promoting an appreciation of art even if not in promoting art itself.

I don't know what this means.

Yes. I think it would be a beneficial way to spread American values around the world, possibly a useful propaganda tool.

In order for art to be commercially successful, it must be pleasing and interesting in some way. If it isn't commercially successfull, likely it's because it's displeasing or uninteresting and has no great artistic merit. Therefore, it's likely that commercially unsuccessful art wouldn't be worth supporting.

__________________
LET ME SEE YOUR WAR FACE!!!

Music and art programs in public schools are separate issues than "funding the arts", IMO.

Drawing, vision, creativity etc. are tools that a person might use throughout their personal or professional lives. Music is known to help kids who have trouble developing math skills. I believe math and semantics are right brain skills. Music and art exercise the right side of the brain without the kids even knowing it. If you want good kids, you gotta be sneaky.

Great word - sneaky.

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt

I agree... though I think math and semantics and the technical parts of music are left-brain things... But music theory allows you to use both the left and right sides of the brain (although I suppose it is theoretically possible to write a technically good song without any appreciation for aesthetics).
It's still a good idea to help kids develop the right sides of their brains to, as most art does... as well as the technical parts of them allowing creative use of the left side. The right side of the brain fuels creativity and emotion. A strong right brain provides the motivation for use of the left brain.
I believe (could be wrong) that in addition to artists, successful entrepreneurs have strong right-brains.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III